The Bombay High Court recently ordered an accused to compensate his child who was born as a result of sexual assault on the deceased victim, citing the importance of the child’s wellbeing.
After noting that holding the accused-appellant would serve no purpose, a bench of Justices Sadhana S Jadhav and Prithwiraj K Chavan reduced his sentence from life to ten years.
Ramesh Vavekar, the appellant, was convicted of raping and impregnating a minor and was sentenced to life in prison under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
“Considering the appellant’s young age and future prospects in his profession as a Disc Jockey, as well as his willingness to provide adequate compensation to the child, we are of the considered opinion that detaining the appellant for the rest of his life would serve no useful purpose; rather, if the amount of compensation to be awarded to the child is adequate, it would serve the ends of justice,” the Court said.
The accused was appealing an order of a special POCSO Court that condemned him to imprisonment and a fine before the High Court. The Special Court had found the accused guilty based on DNA sampling data and other documents.
The deceased, who was 17 years old at the time, was discovered to be pregnant by her mother and sister.
After giving birth to a newborn boy, she died.
The accused was eventually apprehended on the basis of call records from the accused’s and victim’s phones, as well as witness accounts, which proved that the accused was intimate with the deceased.
He was accused with and tried for violating Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 376 and the POCSO Act Section 4.
He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison by a special judge hearing cases under the POCSO Act.
The principal point of the appellant’s lawyer at the High Court was that the victim was not a minor at the time of the occurrence, as evidenced by the fact that she was born in January 1996, implying that she was 19 years old at the time.
He claimed that the victim’s mother testified that her daughter was born in January 1996, and so appealed for the Special Judge’s judgement of conviction and acquittal of the appellant of the crimes for which he had been convicted and sentenced.
The High Court concluded that the victim’s mother, as well as other prosecution witnesses, had been swayed by the defence for reasons best known to them. It was observed that the victim’s age was established beyond a reasonable doubt based on her school-leaving certificate, which indicated that she was around 14 years old at the time of the occurrence.
Given the nature of the evidence, the prosecution maintained that there was no doubt that the appellant perpetrated penetrative aggravated sexual assault on the victim and impregnated her, resulting in her death. She claimed that this was not a case where leniency could be afforded, and that in such cases, a strong message must be delivered.
The Court recognised that the victim was a child when she was exposed to not only severe penetrative sexual assault by the appellant, but was also impregnated as a result of such sexual assault.
“The appellant had taken undue advantage (sic) of the victim’s tender age by seducing her for his amorous sexual lust, resulting in not only impregnating her by committing aggravate penetrative sexual assault but also being responsible for her untimely death and permanently abandoning his own child at the mercy of an orphanage,” the order continued.
The appellant’s attorney then pleaded with the Court to be lenient because of the appellant’s young age, and stated his and his family’s willingness to compensate the youngster adequately.
The Bench noted that, despite convicting the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the trial court did not award any compensation that should have been awarded.
The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 4, but reduced his sentence to ten years and ordered him to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for the child’s welfare.
The appellant was represented by Aashay Topiwala, who was instructed by Anjali Patil.
For the respondent State and the victim, respectively, Additional Public Prosecutor SV Sonawane and attorney Priya Patil appeared.
